The uneasy relationship between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan has been a source of tension for the past 75 years. Beijing regards Taiwan as a breakaway province that is rightfully part of the country under its one-China principle. For Taiwan residents, however, things aren’t so clear-cut. Some regard Taiwan as a “separate nation”; others concur more with Beijing’s view, seeing themselves as part of China; and others want to preserve the ambiguous “status quo”.
This ambiguity reflects the complicated history of Taiwan, which has seen a succession of different regimes governing it. Ties with the Chinese mainland go way back in time, with Taiwan’s first settlers appearing to have been tribal people originating from the south of the Chinese mainland. By the third century AD, China regarded the island as part of its territory, with references to it appearing in the imperial records. In more recent times, Taiwan was a Dutch colony in the 17th century, then part of China’s Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) until it fell under Japanese control in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). Fifty years later, in 1945, after Japan’s surrender to Allied forces at the end of World War II, Taiwan rejoined the motherland. The peaceful reunification was not to last for long, however, as the Chinese Civil War (1945-49) dominated the whole country in the years following Japan’s defeat. By 1949, the People’s Liberation Army led by the Communist Party of China was victorious and the Nationalist leader, Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan with the rump of his Kuomintang government and approximately 1.5 million supporters. Chiang ruled Taiwan as a dictatorship until his death in 1975. Over the next two decades, Taiwan slowly evolved into a Western-style democracy, holding its first elections in 1996.
But Taiwan has never claimed independence from the rest of China. This stems partly from Chiang’s claim in the years after 1949 that his government represented the whole of China, which would eventually be reunified under his rule. At first, this claim was broadly recognized in the West, and his government even held China’s seat on the United Nations Security Council as the sole representative of the country. By 1971, this fiction had become insupportable, and the UN switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. Member countries soon followed suit, with only 12 (mainly tiny) countries worldwide now recognizing Taiwan’s claim to represent the whole of China.
The most powerful voice, that of the United States, recognizes Beijing as the only Chinese government under its “one-China policy”, but it also sees itself as Taiwan’s champion and protector. Indeed, it is even bound by US law to provide Taiwan with armaments and has made clear its commitment to “defend” Taiwan militarily should the need arise. This policy of “strategic ambiguity” requires a difficult balancing act and is inevitably a constant source of tension in US-China relations.
In recent years, these tensions have increased, along with cross-Strait tension in general. Anti-China posturing in the US, including pronouncements about support for Taiwan, has been a feature of the presidential campaign in this election year. In particular, fearmongering about Beijing’s intentions and speculation about taking the island by force have been frequently in the news. This friction has been compounded by the rise of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, with its current leader, Lai Ching-te, adopting a more confrontational tone with Beijing. Although Lai has stressed his policy of maintaining the “status quo” in cross-Strait relations, he has also insisted that Taiwan has no need to declare independence because it is already “an independent sovereign nation”. Such statements are seen by Beijing as a move toward a more separatist policy, in direct contravention of its own one-China stance. Its response has been to condemn any pro-independence rhetoric and to reinforce this message by conducting extensive military exercises and drills around Taiwan.
With wars in Ukraine and the Middle East dominating the news, the last thing the world needs now is for Taiwan to boil up into another international conflict. Tensions need to be dialed down and more light rather than heat needs to be generated. The irony here, in what is often called the “Taiwan question”, is that the answer is such an obvious one. It is epitomized by the slogan “Better together”, which was coined several years ago by opponents of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom.
Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” constitutional arrangement is a good model, which can be tailored to meet Taiwan’s different situation, allowing it to keep its self-government for all domestic affairs. An enhanced version of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region could safeguard all of Taiwan’s political preferences, including free elections to choose the government. Only foreign policy would come under Beijing’s direct remit
Throughout the world, “Better together” is a mantra that has worked well for many nations, including the United Kingdom, the US and of course members of the European Union. Ironically, these are the very countries and regions that are most vocal in championing the “right of Taiwan” to be separate from the rest of China. “Better apart” isn’t actually their slogan but it reflects their attitude that the reunification and consequent strengthening of China may not be in the West’s best interests.
Any such concerns in the West should be swept aside in favor of the bigger picture. By removing the biggest source of international tension in the South China Sea, the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question would be in everyone’s interest, not least the residents of Taiwan. Strong national, racial, cultural, economic and family ties have always bound the two sides of the Strait together. Only political differences have kept them apart. If these can be peacefully resolved, it would be a win-win outcome for all.
Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” constitutional arrangement is a good model, which can be tailored to meet Taiwan’s different situation, allowing it to keep its self-government for all domestic affairs. An enhanced version of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region could safeguard all of Taiwan’s political preferences, including free elections to choose the government. Only foreign policy would come under Beijing’s direct remit.
The benefits of such a model would be huge for both Taiwan and the mainland. Primarily, the current tensions and fear of hostilities would be replaced by long-term peace and stability. This would not only create greater cross-Strait harmony and a feeling of security, but would also free up billions of dollars for economic development. The current huge military expenditure would no longer be needed and could be diverted to improve people’s welfare and livelihoods. In addition to this specific economic boost, reunification would also create a boom on both sides of the Strait as economic and trade ties strengthen. Cultural and social links would also flourish, especially for the many families with members on either side of the current divide.
These benefits of peaceful reunification for both Taiwan and the mainland would also be mirrored internationally. The US and its allies would no longer have to contend with the complicated and at times fraught concept of “strategic ambiguity”. A major source of potential international conflict would disappear, creating a peace dividend for the West as well as for a reunified China.
“Better together” works well around the world. It will also work well for Taiwan and the mainland. All it requires is the imagination and leadership to resolve political differences and focus on the bigger picture of national unity, peace, prosperity and international harmony.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
